RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 9:30:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Secondly, the total oil reserves in the Alaskan wilderness could supply the US oil needs for a week to ten days.

So two weeks after we slaughter the Caribou, we are in the same position we find ourself in today, only worse.


From the Wikipedia link that julia provided:
5.The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
I'd guess that might last more than a week or ten days.

FirmKY




farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 9:31:29 AM)

Who knows what's going on behind the scenes?

Are people being lined up, based on their proclivity for:

1) Indictment on Felony Fraud charges ( 18 USC 371 ) only?

2) Indictment and then Subsequent Impeachment?

3) Using threats of 1 or 2 to compel HONORABLE acts?

Just b/c people aren't scheduled in DC doesn't mean that politics ain't happening.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 9:31:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I would be wel linterested in seeing a link to that so I can find out why they took the day off, and since I am an independent it makes no hill of beans to me which side of the aisle screws up, I do not like either very well.


Oh well - I'll give the answer... FOOTBALL!
Source: http://www.majorityleader.gov/docUploads/002Weekly010507.pdf

quote:

DEM VOW ALREADY BROKEN: HOUSE SETS 4-DAY WORK WEEK
Sun Jan 07 2007 15:03:38 ET

Democrats ran to expand the work week in the House to 5 days.

But guess how long that lasted?

Not even one week! Source:http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm




farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 9:33:48 AM)

Heh.. I saw that "report"..

The "Obtained" the report, but LINKING TO A PUBLIC PDF.

Nice spin on their journalistic efforts. If they lie about their efforts, why not their results?

And the house has little to do for impeachment until the DOJ gets it's act together and prosecutes the fraud.






FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:06:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

Is Bush foolish enough to think that 20-30k more soldiers is going wipe-out Al Sadr and Mahdi Army with 3 -5 million worth of potential followers?

Up till now, the insurgents responsible for most of the attacks on the coalition forces have mostly been made-up of a Sunni / Baathist minority... an escalation that targets Al Sadr will surely create a larger and more vengeful insurgent force.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind111.html

As MacArthur once said ''Reciprocity always comes back to haunt you''


UT,

I read the article by Lind.  Although I'm not really sure what your point is, exactly.

I know William Lind's ideas, and his history pretty well.  I have an original copy of his "Manuver Warfare" booklet, and studied it when I was responsible for strategy and tactics.  Excellent book.

But, over the years, he has lost a lot of credibility.

A couple of things in that article that just jumped out at me (other than his snarky and dismissive tone):
The Democrats taking either or both Houses of Congress, if it happens, will not make any difference. They would rather have the Republicans start and lose another war than prevent a national disaster. Politics comes first and the country second.
Looks like the article was written before the election.  But I think he nailed this.  Accurate observation, in my mind.

What I fear no one forsees is a substantial danger that we could lose the army now deployed in Iraq.

...

The danger arises because almost all of the vast quantities of supplies American armies need come into Iraq from one direction, up from Kuwait and other Gulf ports in the south. If that supply line is cut, our forces may not have enough stuff, especially fuel, to get out of Iraq.

...

There are two ways our supply lines from the south could be cut if we attack Iran. The first is by Shiite militias including the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades

...

The second danger is that regular Iranian Army divisions will roll into Iraq, cut our supply lines and attempt to pocket us in and around Baghdad.

This analysis is simply not likely.

The militias would quickly be decimated if they went into active attacks on the transportation supply routes.

Iranian regular Army Divisions?  Hell, they had a hard time fighting Saddam's Army.  It wouldn't take much for them to be sliced and diced by even a small US force.  With, or without air support.  If they could even get to the areas to endanger our supply lines.

I will say, however, that the new Centcom area commander is a Navy Admiral (transferred directly from PACOM, if memory serves me correctly).

There has been an increase in US, British and Aussie naval forces in the area.

I think we might be getting ready for a strike on Iran, and it will likely be primarily air and missiles, with a heavy emphasis on taking out Iranian naval forces in the Persian Gulf (we've done that before btw).  Inside a week, there wouldn't be an Iranian navy, or air force.  Nor any way to move an Iranian army towards Kuwait.

FirmKY




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:10:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

we WILL be in Iraq for a long time so get use to it people.


Why? Didn't the Republicans lose both the house and senate as a wholesale rejection of the Iraq policy?



Ah, no.  Don't think so. Where did you get that idea?

FirmKY




farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:11:36 AM)

quote:


I think we might be getting ready for a strike on Iran


Why the HELL would anyone even think of something so fucking dumb?

Didn't you pay attention to the way Bush needed to commit fraud to get us into Iraq? Do you think the American People are DUMB enough to fall for that again?

Ok, that *might* be a retarded question.





farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:13:51 AM)

quote:


Ah, no. Don't think so. Where did you get that idea?


From the way all the people supportive of Bush's fraudulent war in Iraq got voted out of office and replaced with people on the record as opposing Bush's failed policies





FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:17:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


I think we might be getting ready for a strike on Iran


Why the HELL would anyone even think of something so fucking dumb?

Didn't you pay attention to the way Bush needed to commit fraud to get us into Iraq? Do you think the American People are DUMB enough to fall for that again?

Ok, that *might* be a retarded question.


By these two highlighted sentence, I take it to mean that you believe that the American people are "dumb" and "retarded"?  Or they are "dumb" and you are "retarded"?

Just asking.  [:D]

FirmKY




Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:19:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


Ah, no. Don't think so. Where did you get that idea?


From the way all the people supportive of Bush's fraudulent war in Iraq got voted out of office and replaced with people on the record as opposing Bush's failed policies


ummm, like Lieberman? Voted for President Bush's plan, ostracized by his party of record, pilloried on the Iraq issue in the general election and still won.

It was a vote against general incompetency and failure more than one issue focus.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:21:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


Ah, no. Don't think so. Where did you get that idea?


From the way all the people supportive of Bush's fraudulent war in Iraq got voted out of office and replaced with people on the record as opposing Bush's failed policies


Let me clarify:

Do you have any reputable polling data or research that shows, without a doubt, that the cause of the average turn over of seats in Congress in the 2006 off-year election was primarily due to the desire of the voters to immediately withdraw from Iraq?

Or is it simply your opinion?

FrimKY




farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:27:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


I think we might be getting ready for a strike on Iran


Why the HELL would anyone even think of something so fucking dumb?

Didn't you pay attention to the way Bush needed to commit fraud to get us into Iraq? Do you think the American People are DUMB enough to fall for that again?

Ok, that *might* be a retarded question.


By these two highlighted sentence, I take it to mean that you believe that the American people are "dumb" and "retarded"? Or they are "dumb" and you are "retarded"?

Just asking. [:D]

FirmKY


I think the meaning of my writing is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

The American People fell for a fraud worse than Enron, that makes them dumb. Are they dumb enough to fall for the same scam again? You tell me.

And it's perfectly clear that the QUESTION may be retarded, due to The American People ALREADY falling for a huge sack of lies.







juliaoceania -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:37:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Secondly, the total oil reserves in the Alaskan wilderness could supply the US oil needs for a week to ten days.

So two weeks after we slaughter the Caribou, we are in the same position we find ourself in today, only worse.


From the Wikipedia link that julia provided:


5.The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.


I'd guess that might last more than a week or ten days.

FirmKY

There were two sides to the story, I presented it that way on purpose, but I see the temptation to spin one side was just too great.  Here are some facts to think about before wanting to sully the wilderness

quote:

Conservationists also argue that oil from the Arctic Refuge would have no significant impact on gas prices. If drilling were authorized, it would still take 10 years for oil from the Arctic Refuge to reach the market, and 20 years for it to hit peak production[8]. Even in the year of peak production, oil from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than eight-tenths of one percent (0.8%) of the world’s oil production. The U.S. Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Administration predicts that Arctic Refuge drilling would reduce the price of gas by no more than a few pennies per gallon when it is at or near peak production twenty years down the road.[9] Conservationists maintain that the best way to solve America’s energy crisis is to use existing technology to make cars and trucks more efficient and to invest in renewable energy.


You see in 20 years if we have not made the transition from oil to something better, the rest of the world will pass us by. 16 billion gallons is what the prononents claim is there, oil industry people that will make money on the books at least if they drill. It is all about propping up fossils as long as possible, no matter what the cost. These are the same people that tried to deny there was global warming and ridiculed the science behind it. I do not trust the source that is in it for profit.

The source that I would look up is Hubbert and his peak oil models, he was denounced back in the day, but he was a lot more close than the oil industry would admit to.

Edited to add that the department of interior, the epa, and the rest are now headed by oil friendly "yes men"




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:39:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Didn't you pay attention to the way Bush needed to commit fraud to get us into Iraq? Do you think the American People are DUMB enough to fall for that again?

Ok, that *might* be a retarded question.


By these two highlighted sentence, I take it to mean that you believe that the American people are "dumb" and "retarded"? Or they are "dumb" and you are "retarded"?

Just asking. [:D]


I think the meaning of my writing is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

The American People fell for a fraud worse than Enron, that makes them dumb. Are they dumb enough to fall for the same scam again? You tell me.

And it's perfectly clear that the QUESTION may be retarded, due to The American People ALREADY falling for a huge sack of lies.


I'm not a "casual observer".

I just wanted to know, if your definitions of "dumb" and "retarded" includes everyone who simply doesn't agree with your opinions.

What "scam" exactly are you talking about "them" falling for, in the case of Iran, anyway?

Pulling teeth here.

FirmKY




farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:47:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Didn't you pay attention to the way Bush needed to commit fraud to get us into Iraq? Do you think the American People are DUMB enough to fall for that again?

Ok, that *might* be a retarded question.


By these two highlighted sentence, I take it to mean that you believe that the American people are "dumb" and "retarded"? Or they are "dumb" and you are "retarded"?

Just asking. [:D]


I think the meaning of my writing is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

The American People fell for a fraud worse than Enron, that makes them dumb. Are they dumb enough to fall for the same scam again? You tell me.

And it's perfectly clear that the QUESTION may be retarded, due to The American People ALREADY falling for a huge sack of lies.


I'm not a "casual observer".

I just wanted to know, if your definitions of "dumb" and "retarded" includes everyone who simply doesn't agree with your opinions.

What "scam" exactly are you talking about "them" falling for, in the case of Iran, anyway?

Pulling teeth here.

FirmKY



The level of DUMBNESS is related to the level of fraud accepted by The American People.

The word "Retarded" refers to a QUESTION, not any group of People.

Here's the details of what Bush et. al. did, which constitutes fraud.

9. Before assuming their offices, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD and POWELL took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

10. As employees of the Executive Branch, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL were governed by Executive Orders 12674 and 12731. These Orders provide that Executive Branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and that the American people have a right to expect that they will fulfill that trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principles. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.

15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,

GEORGE W. BUSH,
RICHARD B. CHENEY,
CONDOLEEZZA RICE,
DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and
COLIN M. POWELL,

and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.





farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:51:13 AM)

Anticipating the, "What did they DO?" questions...

Overt Acts

A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.

C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and (3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.

F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.

G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993; (2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War; (3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and (4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.

M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either: (1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or (2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly. The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process because it was working well.

N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

A TRUE BILL

[Note: This is not an actual indictment]

Assistant United States Attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen, we're going to spend the afternoon discussing the law that applies to your consideration of the indictment...

The full discussion is omitted in this excerpt, but, in brief, this is the legal question you will be deciding:

Is there probable cause to believe that the defendants used deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means -- including lies, false pretenses, misrepresentations, deliberate omissions, half-truths, false promises, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth -- to obstruct, impede, or interfere with Congress' lawful government function of overseeing foreign affairs, relating to the invasion of Iraq?




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 10:54:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

There were two sides to the story, I presented it that way on purpose, but I see the temptation to spin one side was just too great.  Here are some facts to think about before wanting to sully the wilderness

quote:

Conservationists also argue that oil from the Arctic Refuge would have no significant impact on gas prices. If drilling were authorized, it would still take 10 years for oil from the Arctic Refuge to reach the market, and 20 years for it to hit peak production[8]. Even in the year of peak production, oil from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than eight-tenths of one percent (0.8%) of the world’s oil production. The U.S. Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Administration predicts that Arctic Refuge drilling would reduce the price of gas by no more than a few pennies per gallon when it is at or near peak production twenty years down the road.[9] Conservationists maintain that the best way to solve America’s energy crisis is to use existing technology to make cars and trucks more efficient and to invest in renewable energy.



1.  You have better figures somewhere than the ones that you already provided me, and I quoted?  (9 to 16 billion barrels?)

2.  Who cares what the percentage of world oil production it would be?  The more important question is what percentage of US requirements would it meet.

3.  Ten years, huh?  The longest journey starts with the first step.

4.  You'd rather continuing to relying on Middle Eastern oil ... you know ... what you claim is the reason we are in Iraq and the Middle East now, for?

5. Oil is not only used as "fossil fuels".  Even if we were able to convert everything in the next 10 years over to something else, oil still provides other things.  You know ... like plastic, wax, lubricates, asphalt, roofing, and things like that?

6.  You can predict the price of oil ten and twenty years from now?  Egads!  Too bad you aren't a capitalist!  The future's market could make you a fortune! [:D]

FirmKY




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 11:19:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

The level of DUMBNESS is related to the level of fraud accepted by The American People.

The word "Retarded" refers to a QUESTION, not any group of People.


Ok, you are calling the American people "dumb" but not "retarded". Got it.


***

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

9. Before assuming their offices, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD and POWELL took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
True

***
10. As employees of the Executive Branch, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL were governed by Executive Orders 12674 and 12731. These Orders provide that Executive Branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and that the American people have a right to expect that they will fulfill that trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principles. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

No need to look up the Executive Orders.  Executive Orders are written and signed by the President, and can be excised, deleted, or changed at his whim.


***
11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

"deceit, craft, trickery" ... sounds like politics as usual.  [:D]


***
13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

Again, unfortunately, sounds like politics as usual. 

Should we indict Pelosi, who said that the Dems would do certain things within the "first 100 hours" but now has changed the very definition of "100 hours"?

How about when she said that she would support the troop surge ... or at least, not threaten to cut off funding to the war effort ... before she said the opposite?  Sounds "false" or "fraudulent" to me.

Isn't that the same thing?

***
14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.

uhhh .... ok.  *shrugs*

***
15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

Now, see, this is the very essence of a major problem with the Dems (hell, many Republicans now, as well) - making policy differences a legal issue.

When you are on the other side, it's called criminalization of dissent.  Very Orwellian and USSR-ish.


***
The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,  ... and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.

So, I guess what you are really saying is, that the American people are not only dumb, but any one who has a different point of view when it comes to policy, or who has a different view and belief system is a criminal as well.

Got it.  Thanks.

FirmKY





Mercnbeth -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 11:28:28 AM)

Firm,
You forgot one other condition to monitor with the new congress. When you don't like the rules - change them.

For example, it used to take a 3/5ths majority to raise taxes.

quote:

The straight party-line vote received little attention Thursday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, was elected speaker of the House. But Republican leaders and conservative tax-cut advocates said it opened up a huge loophole in a Republican-imposed rule drawn from the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America, which requires a super-majority, or three-fifths vote, to raise taxes.
The Democrats were smart in crafting the new rules," said Dan Clifton, ATR's chief economist. "They did not change them but made additions to them. Now the three-fifths rule can be waived by a simple majority," or 218 votes. 
"President Clinton got a bare majority 218 votes for his tax increases in 1993. So all the Democrats have to do is vote to waive the three-fifths rule, and they've got a tax increase," Mr. Clifton said. 
"In the coming months, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee will be pressured to repeal or waive the Contract with America's barriers against unfair tax increases to make it easier for the Democrat majority in Congress to raise taxes," Mr. Boehner predicted.
Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070106-115506-5182r.htm  




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/8/2007 11:41:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Anticipating the, "What did they DO?" questions...

Overt Acts

yada, yada, yada


I'm glad that you are so certain that you have read the hearts and minds of everyone within the Administration, and know "all the facts".

Quite a feat.

Where'd you get this, anyway?  Tom Engelhardt's The Nation blog, right?

The Nation is a pretty "progressive" mag, and organization.  Engelhardt, I don't know, but just looking over his stuff, he seems to be pretty typical of the type.  What I call an "American Hegemonist Doctrine" believer.

An axe to grind, in other words.

Elizabeth de la Vega?  I don't doubt I'd find some interesting facts about her, if I cared enough to research her.

The thing about all of them, is that first they have an agenda, then they seek ways to make the facts fit their desires. 

They think that the American people are "dumb" and anyone who disagrees with them are "criminals".  I see that often enough, even here on our forums, believe it or not!

FirmKY




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875